Get a feature toggle

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the `overrides` array contents and the `feature_not_found:<code>` error contract for unknown codes. It stops short of stating permissions or whether overrides are paginated/complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense but well-ordered sentence: return shape first, the non-obvious `overrides` detail second, error contract last. No filler, though 'fields as in list-features' forces a cross-tool lookup.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so adequately by naming the fields' source and detailing `overrides` plus the error case. Only minor gaps remain (e.g. whether fields include name/state, ordering of overrides).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `code` parameter is documented in the schema with an exact-match example. The description adds only the failure semantics for a bad code, not new meaning about the parameter itself, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States it returns a single feature and enumerates the notable extra structure (`overrides` with adminUnitId/adminUnitName/enabled), which is a specific resource plus its distinguishing payload. It implicitly differentiates from list-features by deferring field shape to that tool, though the retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that this is the single-item lookup versus `list-features`. The reference to list-features is for field naming, not for routing between the two tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.